13 VI*) [1902 Paris].

I received at once a batch of letters, of which the greater part relates to "the history"*). From the letter of Lev Grigoryevich [Deich] it is evident that his negotiations and P. B. [Axelrod's] with Plekhanov came to nothing, or at best will only muddy the waters. More important for me is Vera Ivanovna Zasulich's letter to me, who already knows of these negotiations. She writes that elementary justice requires that if you have not taken into account those remarks on the substance, which are shared by the whole Group, then you ought to note that the author of the article "defends the general agrarian programme from his own point of view, not in all respects shared by all members of the editorial board," and that other articles on the same theme are possible.

I do not know whether you took into consideration any of the remarks made on the article by Pavel Borisovich [Axelrod] (and, consequently, also by Vera Ivanovna Zasulich); I would consider it desirable that you discuss with Vera Ivanovna Zasulich what she has against certain passages of the article, and I think (having in mind my conversations with her on this matter) that you would easily come to an understanding with her. If, however, you do not wish to do this, then, in my view, it would be better to make such or a similar note, inasmuch as the article in its present form will have the whole Group against it, and—from the standpoint of the future "constitution"—it will have to be recognized as not shared by the majority.

I shall write today, if I have time, to Lev Grigoryevich [Deich] (and, consequently, also to Pavel Borisovich Axelrod), and shall enclose for you a copy of the letter to him.

7 (105)
**YU. O. MARTOV—V. I. LENIN**

*) By its content the letter relates to June. Yu. O. Martov made an error in dating it "13 VII". *Editor.*

---

# 10. O. MARTOV—V. I. LENIN

**FROM PARIS**

—The situation here is as follows: the socialists-revolutionaries are angry with us, obviously preparing for war; they didn't show up at my lecture, apparently in retaliation for our boycotting Voroshilov's lecture²). Our allies—in view of Olkhin Lokhov's and Martynov's departure—are represented only by Krichevsky and Ivanynin³). Krichevsky spoke very correctly, made certain overtures, but—sat between two stools on the question of terror and terribly muddled the issue. From an intelligent lady⁴) (recently from Russia, a person fairly well-known), I learned that in the Union there is a very strong terrorist current and that Krichevsky stands for the practice of "defensive" terror by social-democratic committees. If that is so, we shall hardly come to terms with them, for this is again courting the Russians, among whom, as it turns out, terrorist declarations by social-democrats already exist (from the Don committee)....

The Bundists are clinging to us very much. The Fighters⁵) are obviously dying out, their appearance bloated and dispirited; the youth is running away from them to us. The Great Calendar⁶) doesn't sell even abroad: the local literature vendor at the former dining room said that out of 40 copies given to him, he hasn't sold a single one. The calf's [Struve's] statement (I hope you received it) did not make a big impression; obviously the public doesn't understand the significance of this act, and it's possible that any attack on him will be met as a manifestation of our quarrelsomeness. The same lady told me that he conducted negotiations with socialists-revolutionaries and that they are favorably disposed toward him.

—Regarding B—⁸), the matter is somehow very unclear. Leiten[zen] fears that he will foul the entire path. We wrote to him and Nolich⁹) asking him to answer immediately precisely and thoroughly: what exactly happened to him, under what circumstances? and what did they take from him? If the complete harmlessness of this incident is not clear, we shall demand that he immediately leave **by another route** to Russia to arrange the reception, and we shall arrange Smirnov from this side. Leiten[zen] even thinks that Smirnov shouldn't go either, and that Nolich will do everything.

The money received from Bern must be taken by someone, for which Leiten[zen] is sending his card, and kept with us—These are monies for literature.

Tell N. K. [Krupskaya] that Neisarzon⁹), of whom it is written in the Moscow letter, is unknown to me. This is probably simply the author of the letter giving information about himself "at random." But that M. Lurye got stuck without reaching his destination, that is simply stupid.—When I left, I left N. K. [Krupskaya] a letter just received from Bern; it wouldn't hurt to examine it, there might be something.

—From conversations with the "intelligent lady" it emerges that our collision with the calf [Struve] is most likely precisely over the peasant question. She conveyed very curious conversations of hers with landowners (even liberal ones), who blame social-democracy and the workers for the disorders; workers, expelled due to unemployment, played, according to their accounts, the chief role in stirring up the disorders. According to one landowner, "Witte has long been said to be a Marxist," and now they decided that he intentionally introduced the expulsion of the unemployed in order to shake the countryside. In her opinion, the absence of enthusiasm among socialists-revolutionaries regarding the unrest can also be explained by this frightened state of the zemstvos. Quite excellent!

V. Iv. [Zasulich] writes about inserting into Leiten[zen's] article a note made by Grigory Valentinovich (concerning Rappoport)¹¹). Leiten[zen] is against this and I fully agree with him. This would be too petty—now, after Rappoport has publicly repented of his transgression and at meetings (as happened at mine) solemnly declares that with regard to European socialism Plekhanov and his faction "displayed remarkable penetration," and that he honors Plekhanov as the "father of Russian working-class movement"......

I press your hand. When are you arriving?¹²)

**P.S.** The letter to L. G. [Deich] has swelled to 3 sheets—I have no time to make a copy; I shall tell you its contents when we meet. I considered it necessary to speak more sharply and to frighten both diplomats somewhat, otherwise they are subjected to too one-sided terrorization. Nothing can be done about it! I am sending his letter to you, as I don't know if you have read it.

---

**FOOTNOTES:**

1) To "the history"—to the conflict over V. I. Lenin's article "The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy."

2) Voroshilov—after the name of one of the characters in Turgenev's novel *Smoke*—is what Lenin called V. M. Chernov, leader of the socialists-revolutionaries, in his articles on critics of Marx. "My dear Mr. Chernov," Lenin wrote, "How wonderfully he resembles Turgenev's Voroshilov, remember—in *Smoke*—the young Russian private-docent," etc. (Collected Works, vol. IX, p. 91).

3) Olkhin, Martynov, Krichevsky, and Ivanynin—members of the "Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad."

4) Martov is speaking here and below of E. M. Aleksandrova, a former People's Willist who arrived abroad from Siberian exile. Aleksandrova joined *Iskra*, traveled on its business to Russia. Entered the Organizational Committee for convening the Party's Second Congress. Under the name "Stein" played a prominent role at the Second Congress, joining the minority. Subsequently withdrew from the movement. In other letters of Martov's she is mentioned under the name "Vasily" and also "Jacques."

5) Members of the group "Struggle."

6) "The Social-Democratic Calendar for 1902"—published by the group "Struggle" in February 1902.

7) The statement "From the Editor" by P. Struve on the publication of *Osvobozhdeniye* [Liberation]. (See note 6 to letter 5.)

8) B—presumably Avraham Velsky, an *Iskra* member. Was arrested in connection with the case of the *Iskra* people from Kiev, fled abroad.

9) Who is in question could not be established.

10) Moisei Lurye, a social-democrat, former member of the "St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class," 1896–97 (not a Rabochaia Gazeta member).

11) Article by Lindov-Leiten[zen] in issue 4 of *Zarya*: "The Elections in France." Charles Rappoport, a former People's Willist, émigré, then socialist-revolutionary, Plekhanovite and, finally, communist.

12) The question relates to Lenin's expected arrival in Paris to deliver a lecture. See in more detail note 1 to letter 10.